Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Hey people, have you ever wondered if time isn't simply space rotated through a right angle?

Your thoughts on time... I find it fascinating.

--------------------

'Let that be a lesson to all oppressive vegetable sellers.'

Time is time. You can't stop it. It's more like clockwork. What do you mean by space rotated through a right angle?

Time is man's invention. It does not exist without us to create it and maintain it.

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

not true. Time would go on with or without us. even if the universe ended, there would still be something left...time would go on, it is never-ending

I think what Hamedo means is that it's our creation in the sense that we've divised a way to measure it, and have a system of time zones. The Earth, Sun and Moon have cycles that help us (and other creatures) know when it's day or night, and humans have elaborated on that. 7:30pm is man's creation, but sunset is outside of mankind's control and predates humans.

--------------------

I had an old signature. Now I've changed it.

if it exists without us, it is free

This post has been edited by footbigmike on 3rd June 2005 12:34

Well for us to exist in the way we do and for things to happen, time must exist on some level. But are you sure it is only humans who measure time?

What makes things even more interesting though, is the fact that time is not a constant. In some circumstances it is slower and in some faster.

--------------------

'Let that be a lesson to all oppressive vegetable sellers.'

Like a black hole. It slows down time. The closer you get, the slower you seem to go.

Quote (footbigmike @ 3rd June 2005 07:36)

Like a black hole. It slows down time. The closer you get, the slower you seem to go.

it's more complicated than that, actually. If you were to observe something being consumed by a black hole (which is probably quite impossible, but still...) then it would take less than a second to disintegrate and be absorbed by it. It's all relative. From within the gravitational influence of said black hole, the object would get exponentially slower as it moved closer and closer to the black hole, and basically experience an eternity. General relativity tells us that time can be somewhat "warped" (thought warped probably isn't the best word for it...) through theoretical faster-than-light travel, enormously massive objects like black holes or neutron stars, and naturally by the expansion of the universe. I don't want this to turn in to another argument about how the universe behaves, so I'll make a generalization: time is relative.

To Hamedo: that reminds me of this long-running debate that I had with one of my friends in multivar senior year: "was mathematics discovered or invented?" Entertaining stuff, but I honestly don't remember many of the details of that argument and don't feel like working my brain to recall it all again.

--------------------

this is a blog mostly about comics and videogames
END SPOILER

I don't think time can slow down or speed up. It's a one way street, and the clocks we use, they're just metronomes, really. Sure, we could make 'em tick slower, but that'd just change its value, not really make it less.
Not sure how to say this. Basically, I don't think we can ever relive ourselves. A flower can't ungrow, time can't go backwards. Simple as that, no matter how mathematic we make it.

--------------------

You're telling me that there's no hope.

I'm telling you you're wrong.

Quote (laszlow @ 3rd June 2005 14:47)

If you were to observe something being consumed by a black hole (which is probably quite impossible, but still...) then it would take less than a second to disintegrate and be absorbed by it. It's all relative. From within the gravitational influence of said black hole, the object would get exponentially slower as it moved closer and closer to the black hole, and basically experience an eternity. General relativity tells us that time can be somewhat "warped" (thought warped probably isn't the best word for it...) through theoretical faster-than-light travel, enormously massive objects like black holes or neutron stars, and naturally by the expansion of the universe. I don't want this to turn in to another argument about how the universe behaves, so I'll make a generalization: time is relative.

So would you say the speed that time moves at, is relative to the amount of gravity in the said area and also the speed that one is moving at, should also be taken into consideration?

--------------------

'Let that be a lesson to all oppressive vegetable sellers.'

Someone once posed me a riddle that went something along the lines of:
try to hoarde it, and you waste it. Try to save it, and it slips through your fingers.

--------------------

M777: lightweight 155mm howitzer
3/11 rules over all artillery!

Quote (fatman @ 3rd June 2005 12:55)

So would you say the speed that time moves at, is relative to the amount of gravity in the said area and also the speed that one is moving at, should also be taken into consideration?

Pretty much, yeah. I could give more specific details, like "theoretical distance from center of the universe in order to take time dilation due to the expansion of space and time," but it all boils down to speed and gravity.

--------------------

this is a blog mostly about comics and videogames
END SPOILER

wow, you guys have good points. i took a class on astronomy and believe it or not ucsd offers a class entitled the history of time.

heres my main weird thing: we once discussed the speed of light not time. theoretically, is it possible to go BACK in time if you travel FASTER than the speed of light?

a very trivial example: if your in a space ship, and theres a beam of light traveling right next to you, and your moving faster than it (like beating it in a race) what the hell does that mean? i know it can never happen but wtf, lol, that stuff fried my brain in class.

This post has been edited by baralai888 on 4th June 2005 04:27

--------------------

"The answer is, of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved."
- Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince

What I remember of the "time travel through light speed" theory is that if you manage to travel in a craft at the speed of light, you'd actually go forward in time rather than backwards. For instance: Let's say you're in space flying around in a ship that can somehow reach light speed. At that speed, you orbit earth for a few years (in real time, courtesy of your onboard clock). Inside, you'd start aging at a slower pace, at least compared to on earth or anywhere outside your ship, where several decades could pass in that length of time. Once you finally land, only a short time would have gone by to you, but hundreds of years would have gone by on earth.

So basically that's just backing up laszlow's claim that time is relative, which most people would say is true.

However, there's also Galilean Space-Time (or Newtonian Time, whichever) which states there's an absolute, universal time and thus speeds exceeding the speed of light are possible (course, this came long before Einstein's theory of relativity which states the exact opposite). The fact remains that it's unknown whether light speed's unsurpassable or not; nowadays it's just an assumption that it isn't based on simple physics. Many scientists agree that in order to "beat" the speed of light, like in your race there, they'd need to create negative energy densities outta...something, which would then act similar to the concept of warp holes, allowing time travel in (possibly) either direction. But as of now not enough is known about the space-time continuum to even figure out just how time travel would work - past educated guesses, that is.

As for my own thoughts on time itself: I think the concept we're all used to - whatever the clock/calendar/etc. says - is simply our way of scheduling time, but has little to do with real time. I do think it's relative, but at the same time absolute, if that makes any sense. I think time passes differently for creatures/objects in movement than for stationary creatures/objects, yet it still passes equally overall. For example: Using the same example I gave above for "relative time travel", although only a few years went by inside your ship, and several hundred went by on earth, once you stop travelling at the speed of light then time immediately starts to pass equally for both you and the people on earth. It might have been the year 2021 when you first took off, but you can't say it's still the same year by just sitting in your ship on the surface of a planet in the year 4050. So perhaps there is a universal time that flows through space, but what becomes relative is all just a form of time "warping" itself.

Eh...I know what I mean, and that's what's important. Right?

--------------------

Words of Wisdom:

If something can go wrong, it will.

If anything simply cannot go wrong, it will anyway.

If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong. - Murphy’s Law

Boing! Zoom! - Mr. Saturn

Quote (SilverFork @ 4th June 2005 01:50)

However, there's also Galilean Space-Time (or Newtonian Time, whichever) which states there's an absolute, universal time and thus speeds exceeding the speed of light are possible (course, this came long before Einstein's theory of relativity which states the exact opposite).  The fact remains that it's unknown whether light speed's unsurpassable or not; nowadays it's just an assumption that it isn't based on simple physics.  Many scientists agree that in order to "beat" the speed of light, like in your race there, they'd need to create negative energy densities outta...something, which would then act similar to the concept of warp holes, allowing time travel in (possibly) either direction.  But as of now not enough is known about the space-time continuum to even figure out just how time travel would work - past educated guesses, that is.

Interesting. I am unfamiliar with the “physics of time” theories you were discussing, but I always found the concept of time traveling as relative to the existence of time paradoxical. Because if time travel CAN be achieved, it’s almost as if time exists as an endless continuum of sorts— every second repeats itself endlessly and can be accessed at any moment by some sort of mechanism (like the one you described, exceeding the speed of light, i.e. the so called time travels). In other words, does it even exist? Perhaps it’s more like the “universal time” that you were talking about. So if time travel CAN be achieved, then time is either "universal", or it "doesn't exist" as humans preceive it, like some of the posters above said.

(Disclaimer: I am drunk. Good friday night, great party, some slight "results" )

Who's to say time "flows"? Let's cut the metaphysical bullcrap and have a look at some real examples.

You have a 2D grid. Cells in this grid are either on or off and the rules dictating this are equal to Conway's game of life. So if someone lets things run free, there's an outcome eventually. Perhaps in the distant "future." But if someone decides to turn on a few cells, suddently the outcome changes. There's nothing stopping you from doing it, and every cell in the game are aware of their own 2D universe as THEY flow through it.

Let's kick it up a notch and have a 3D grid instead. Are things any different? Not really: we still have events occuring. If someone goes back and edits a cell, the effects affect the immediate cells first, and the surrounding cells evolve accordingly over various iterations. Each cell, again, is aware of its own 3 dimensional position in this world.

Now excuse me while I give in to my body's immediate desire to explain to me this party was a little too hardcore and the alcoholic contents of my body must be purged.

Ok, sorry about that. Back to some coherance. Grungh....

Suppose we have a 4D universe now. Same rules and stuff. Each cell is aware of its immediate surroundings and, ah heck, forget this. I need sleep. Draw your own conclusions. Or something.

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

I was kinda half-asleep when I made my first post. Since I didn't clarify, the theory of relativity also includes the possibility of traveling through time (time dilation). If nothing else, it provides evidence that it's highly possible even though it doesn't support breaching the speed of light.

Quote (manapriestess)

Interesting. I am unfamiliar with the “physics of time” theories you were discussing, but I always found the concept of time traveling as relative to the existence of time paradoxical. Because if time travel CAN be achieved, it’s almost as if time exists as an endless continuum of sorts— every second repeats itself endlessly and can be accessed at any moment by some sort of mechanism (like the one you described, exceeding the speed of light, i.e. the so called time travels). In other words, does it even exist? Perhaps it’s more like the “universal time” that you were talking about. So if time travel CAN be achieved, then time is either "universal", or it "doesn't exist" as humans preceive it, like some of the posters above said.

That's a good point. I've heard/read theories mainly dealing with the paradox of traveling into the past. One that's considered feasible, if not a li'l science fiction-y, is the proposed existence of a multiverse (kinda like the one mentioned in the universe topic, though more like separate dimensions accessed through wormholes instead of a collection of individual universes). This theory basically toys with the idea that there are several dimensions out there that contain "copies" of everything and everyone in this dimension. Every event and every possible outcome having to do with every creature, object, etc. in our universe is repeated. Alternate universes, if you will. By traveling through a wormhole, or whatever can tear through the fabric of space-time, we could reach one of these dimensions where events from the past occur, but since any people you'd come across technically wouldn't be the same ones from our universe, there's no paradox. Unlike in the Back to the Future movies, meddling in your parent's lives before you were born in this universe, or something along those lines, wouldn't result in any consequences in the "real" world. Likewise, coming into contact with your alternate, past self wouldn't do any harm since they wouldn't actually be you, but a "copy". Same goes for them if they traveled to any alternate universes.

Yeah, it sounds wacky, but it's one of the more realistic takes on reverse time travel. Personally, I don't see it being possible as, no matter if time is relative or not, the past is pretty much set in stone. This multiversal theorizing, while excluding a big paradox and presenting a logical method, just doesn't seem likely.

I don't mean to turn this topic from time to time travel, so maybe I should shut my yap now.

--------------------

Words of Wisdom:

If something can go wrong, it will.

If anything simply cannot go wrong, it will anyway.

If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong. - Murphy’s Law

Boing! Zoom! - Mr. Saturn

Time is a measure that people made to, well, measure how things go by.
I won't say anything more at the time ;P

--------------------

"I fell off the mountain of words at around the 10,000ft mark. Tell my family...they owe me money." -Narratorway

"If you retort against this, so help me God I'll shove any part of your anatomy I can find into some other part. Figuratively, of course." - Josh

"We have more, can deliver tuesday." - Del S

Good old CoN

Time is a rockin' Pink Floyd song!

--------------------

"Thought I was dead, eh? Not until I fulfill my dream!"
Seifer Almasy


"The most important part of the story is the ending."
Secret Window


"Peace is but a shadow of death."
Kuja

Quote (FabulousFreebird @ 4th June 2005 09:47)

Time is a rockin' Pink Floyd song!

Granted. (Observes Darkside of the Moon T-Shirt he is currently wearing)


I agree with Relm. Time exists, as it's just naturally how things flow, however humans can choose to measure it however they wish. Naturally we just based things off, a DAY, persay, because the period of time before the sun went up and down was important in primitive society. Or month, branching from MOON. A moons turn. Theoreticly we could just throw everything out and completely rebuild our system from the ground up saying everything that was one minute is now 2 minutes. All of our math and science would be completely blown off by this change. It's fascinating how so much stuff is all riding on one man made way of measuring the flow of existance.


And if you wanna go back in time-

Just go lightspeed then shift the ship into reverse, silly

Which is also fascinating. Because light travels at a certain speed, no matter what we do to change our time measurements, the light speed measurement will also have to change.

This post has been edited by MogMaster on 4th June 2005 14:14

--------------------

If you've been mod-o-fied,
It's an illusion, and you're in-between.
Don't you be tarot-fied,
It's just alot of nothing, so what can it mean?
~Frank Zappa

Sins exist only for people who are on the Way or approaching the Way

I just have to say, so far there are some brilliant answers, that I've really enjoyed reading. Siverlance, I'd like to see how your example ends up, when it's in a 4D universe! Sounds intriguing.

I have to agree with Silverfork, the idea of traveling back in time sounds pretty unlikely. I doubt it could be accomplished. And if it could, we would be in trouble.

I think time will always move forward. How fast it moves is the question.

--------------------

'Let that be a lesson to all oppressive vegetable sellers.'

Ehh... I wish I knew what I was going on about back there.

I see time as a static entity. Think of it like a big soup bowl, only instead of having depth, width, and height, it has an extra fourth dimension used to represent its volume. Just keep in mind that objects can move around in this soup along 4 axises: X, Y, Z, and W. HOW they do it is unimportant, it's really hard to visualise a fourth physical dimension anyhow so that isn't important.

Now we have this little breadcrumb floating about in our huge-ass soup bowl. We place it at the bottom. The air in the breadcrumb will cause it to move around along the Y axis continuously as it rises, and about its other axises in any direction (yeah, even this new W axis.) The fact there are air bubbles stuck inside the crust means it can't go back down, and it has to move upwards continuously. Once it reaches the top, it stops rising and stops. Its journey has ended.

Let's look at us humans now. We come into being somewhere in this soup at any point along the 4 axises. However, like the breadcrumb, a certain set of laws state that while we can move along the X, Y, and Z axises as we see free, we move forward in the W axis until we die. At which point we don't move anymore if we didn't get zombie status during the last 3 rounds. For the sake of having something a little more concrete to talk about, we'll name this W axis "time."

Now, the breadcrumb may make this easier to visualise. While the crumb was rising to the top of the soup, the soup wasn't moving. It stood perfectly still, but the crumb was moved through the Y axis. Other objects exist in the soupbowl and the crumb may've bumped into them, causing them (and the crumb) to move along the other three axises slightly. If our soup had a LOT of stuff in it, these other objects may bump into objects as well, causing a chain reaction.

The above served to illustrate two points.

1- The soupbowl is static. It merely seemed, to the crumb, that it was moving dowards because it (again, the crumb) was rising without taking any actions. The whole action -> reaction thing may've caused the crumb to believe that since it wasn't doing anything, something else was, and the logical conclusion it would have is that the soup's moving. But since breadcrumbs don't talk, you're all a bunch of bloody loonies. Seriously, seek some help.

2- Objects moving along the soupbowl may sometimes bump into each other. Since the crumb is only moving upwards (and if we assume everything in the soupbowl can only rise, not sink) it can't bump another object downwards. But it can bump it sideways and alter the final location where that object will end up once it reaches the surface.

How does this translate to time?

Time (the W axis) behaves just like all other dimensions. It doesn't move, we do. But we beleive it moves ahead because, frankly, we all see things moving along the other three axises in such a way that we seem further along this fourth axis. And we didn't do anything to get there. But really, if time itself moved forward, then past states would be lost forever and previous events would vanish. We'd only exist in an ever-changing present. That in itself is a possibility, but since we have memories and we can record events that took place in the past, and since our actions DO produce reactions in the future, then it's safe to assume there is such a thing as a past (ie, we're somewhere along the middle of the W axis, and not just stuck at one end while it slides forwards.)

Actions in the present cannot affect the past because we're moving forward. Nobody's moving backwards (at least, that we know of.) But what if someone did move backwards? Well, if you build up a tower of legos, then go back down and remove one of the block, the tower changes because it's a static "soup" of blocks placed along 3 axises (X, Y, Z.) Forget the fact it crumbles as that's got a negative connotation to it; it merely changes the state of the blocks above the one that was removed. The tower itself is still just a 3D entity but the blocks themselves have moved (and were it not for gravity, they'd have moved along the X and Z axises only, not backwards along Y.)

Anyhow. That's how I see this stuff.

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

Some of you may be interested in this article on Time.

--------------------

I had an old signature. Now I've changed it.

Time doesn't go by fast enough at school and work, and yet it goes by too fast when having fun. Time is not on our side.

--------------------

FFXI (Siren server)
Tauu the Windurstian Tarutaru!
White Mage & Paladin

I suppose time does exist, we humans just give it measures..like days, months, years...is like physical space, we measures things in inches, miles..etc. I can say for sure that time is always against us.

--------------------

"Its no cheating if you don't get caught"

...

does the convential wisdom on physical theories *really* still live in the early 1900's? as early as special relativity we established that space and time are non-differentiable; that is, catering to the non-m view of a three-dimensional *spatial* universe (for the sake of simplicity; however, do note that m-theory has brought us up to no less than ten spatial dimensions), we live actually in a *four*-d universe: three spatial ds, and the time d. that is, time ans space are inextricably interwoven. time is far, far, far, far from just a "measurement" of our passing thru the annals of history. now, to dispel some of the untruths presented here...

we'll start with the "time-travel" thing. let us recall invariance. light travels at c ALWAYS regardless of the state of the observer. that is, if i am going 0 or if i am going .99c, light will *always* recede from me at c. always. so do not expect that you can "pass" a beam of light. furthermore, recall that as an object gains energy (i.e., e[k]=1/2mv^2), it gains mass. e=mc^2? simply put, when an object is travelling at speeds near c, it gains large amounts of mass. quickly look at relativity theory and you'll see that for an object to *reach* the speed of c, it would take an *infinite* amount of energy (to accelerate an *infinite* mass). since this is clearly impossible, such theories on time-travel are easily disregarded.

silverlance: the widely-held physical opinion is that time flows. i feel that time flows; i could be wrong. to find out otherwise would necessitate a radical reevaluation of even the most modern of physical understandings. we expect m-theory to answer the question. also, time does not have four dimensions of its own but is in fact the fourth dimension of the universe (depending on how onw numbers the ds).

silverfork: "multiverse" theory is nothing remotely similar to what you're describing. the multiple universes of multiverse do not "contain "copies" of everything and everyone in this dimension" and neither are they parallel dimensions and neither is your theory on wormholes anything resemblant of being minutely realistic.

so, does the speed at which time flows ever change?

YES.

it is somewhat complicated -- not that it can't be explained simply, but rather that it would take me a long-ass post to do so and i can't say i'm feeling up to it at the time. but i'm sure if you have specific, natural, realistic, and well-worded questions, [i'm sure] either lazlow or myself would be extremely happy to answer them for you.

so let's try. basically, the speed at which an observer "experiences" (or "flows through," as i like to put it) time depends on his or her state of motion. the faster you go, the slower time goes for you *relative to* "perfect stillness outside of the influence of any gravitational field" (put in ""'s because it's obviously impossible, but on the scales we're talking about what with c being the top-out speed, we can get close enough to matter). of course, at the same time, the same "stationary" observer can make a perfectly sound claim that you are the stationary and he is moving at the fast speed and so you experience time more slowly. if you don't have a ehadache yet, recall that gravity is actually a WARPING of spacetime; a curvature or dilation that lorentz-contracts every spatial and temporal point in its field of influence. but also recall that gravity and acceleration are the exact same thing. so, even being accelerated does not preclude an observer from claiming he is stationary. he ust has to say he is in a gravitational field.

edit: added "i'm sure" so as not to speak for lazlow.

This post has been edited by gozaru~ on 12th June 2005 14:32

Silverlance, that theory on the 4th dimension is really interesting so I managed to find something very interesting out of my brain using logical and mathematics.
The sphere, the only geometrical form that is perfect, why? Because all its dimensions are totally stable. Just take an example on balloons, if you don’t create a shape to them, it will grow as a sphere if you insert compressed air within.

4th Dimension: Unknown = 4/9 pi Re^(4)
3rd Dimension: Volume of a sphere = 4/3 pi Re^(3)
2nd Dimension: Surface area of a sphere = 4 pi Re^(2)
1st Dimension: Unknown =12 pi R
Comparison : z = r/3e^(x - y)
Please note : r/3e^(x - y) and not (r/3)e^(x - y) !!!

Where:
Z = comparison
X = current dimension
Y = next dimension

I’m not even sure that the First dimension exists, as it doesn’t make any sense. However, I’m sorry but I really think this has nothing to do with time. Yet I don’t know how to find the 4th Dimension in any other type of geometrical form.

Yet here’s my theory of time:

Does the time speed changes?
My answer is yes, because, the variance is not always the same, but the result is.

Let me explain myself:
The speed as the exact same influence on anything at the same level. That means that you cannot age faster that anyone else and vice-versa. However I think that Sped has multiple heights and I will show you an example of a formula to explain myself.

Let’s say:
Y = time
Let’s say someone found of that the formula to calculate the time variance is y = 4x + 12
But let’s look at something interesting, y = 4x + 16 is a different formula but gives the exact same results in some way:
Y = 4x + 12
X=1 y=16
X=2 y=20
X=3 y=24
X=4 y=28
X=5 y=32

4x + 16
X=1 y=20
X=2 y=24
X=3 y=28
X=4 y=32
X=5 y=36

Get it ? The variance of time can change, but the result will always be the same.
So I think we should bother about it… It’s exactly the same a buying a PS2 at Canada at 200$ ($150US) or in America at $150US…It’s up to you, the same is for time.

If the time speeds down or speeds up, whatever nothing will change because everything will still remain at the same proportion.
Y=x/5 & x=5y

Dead Line…

This post has been edited by Zodiac on 12th June 2005 23:26

--------------------

Sayonara

Quote (gozaru~ @ 12th June 2005 09:27)

silverfork: "multiverse" theory is nothing remotely similar to what you're describing.  the multiple universes of multiverse do not "contain "copies" of everything and everyone in this dimension" and neither are they parallel dimensions and neither is your theory on wormholes anything resemblant of being minutely realistic.

Did I say that was MY theory? No, I did not. I simply echoed one theory I found interesting dealing with the multiverse concept - one that varies from the typical quantum mechanical interpretations but still conforms to other theories. I'm certainly not going to list ALL the others there are out there. It might differ from what you know/have heard, but that doesn't make it or its sub-theories any more invalid (even if I do disagree with it and clearly you do too). Please pay more attention next time.

Also, if we're to follow Einstein's words (and his theory of relativity) as gospel, then perhaps it is impossible to surpass light speed, but that's a big "IF".

Edit

Wasn't actually finished; a migraine and methadone aren't exactly the best companions when discussing somethin'. Anyways, what you alluded to I'm assuming is the idea brought up by Schrodinger (sp?) and Everett - the "multiple worlds" theory that the universe constantly splits into separate universes, triggered by a change in energy parcels - or basically anything on a quantum level - yadda, yadda, infinite outcomes occur in what're often called "parallel universes", etc. I don't think I need to point out what kinda conclusions that can lead to. If that's not what you meant, then I don't think we were on the same wavelength to begin with.

Time travel on an atomic level, however, could still happen. If nothing else, 'cause Einstein's discoveries, I believe, predated quantum mechanics and thus never included anything to refute its speculations...last I checked. Although Einstein did postulate that negative energy for creating wormholes (allowing travel through the three dimensions, or four if you count time) could be stored in black holes...and...well, now I'm just rambling.

I think the bottom line here is there's no "end all, beat all" evidence on whether or not time travel is possible, nor is there much more than a million or so hypotheses for unlocking all the mysteries of space-time itself. In other words: NO ONE KNOOOOOOWWWS....

This post has been edited by SilverFork on 13th June 2005 13:18

--------------------

Words of Wisdom:

If something can go wrong, it will.

If anything simply cannot go wrong, it will anyway.

If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong. - Murphy’s Law

Boing! Zoom! - Mr. Saturn

Quote (SilverFork @ 12th June 2005 23:38)

Also, if we're to follow Einstein's words (and his theory of relativity) as gospel, then perhaps it is impossible to surpass light speed, but that's a big "IF".

Assuming Plankt (sp?)'s theory is correct, there's some interesting deductions we can make from the whole "speed of light == ultimate fastness."

Plankt's constant is the smallest possible unit of time/space through which an entity can move. It's like a pixel on your monitor, only IRL, and very, very, very, very tiny. The basics behind this are that objects do have a very real position in time/space, and that there's no "in-between" state for things: reality isn't a discreet unrepresentable entity of uncertainty and non-determinism. For the sake of making it easier on everyone, I'll call one of these units a "plankt."

So if 1 plankt is as small as it gets, that would mean that light travels at 1 plankt spatial unit for every 1 plankt time unit. That's the smallest possible ratio, and therefore it's impossible to travel any faster. This would explain why light is the head honcho of speed. This, however, does not prove that it really is: it merely says that something going at 1/1 plankt would be the fastest possible thing in all reality. So if light were to go at, say, 1 spatial plankt unit vs. 2 time plankt units, then there's still room for something to move faster. It's one hell of a tight squeeze, however!

Wether Plankt's research is valid or not is a matter of opinion, but it's an interesting explanation for things like this. At least, an interesting way to see it.

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."